Tuesday, September 13, 2016

NGOs in India have been accused of serving
as tools for the foreign policy interests of western governments

7 September
2016 12.19 BST

It’s been over two years since a leaked report by India’s
Intelligence Bureau (IB) sent a chill across Indian civil society. NGOs were accused by the IB of reducing India’s GDP by a staggering 2-3% per annum, by campaigning against
projects that the Indian government argued to be integral for economic growth.

The fallout was profound.
NGOs, including Greenpeace, Amnesty and Cordaid, were accused of “serving as
tools for foreign policy interests of western governments” by sponsoring
campaigns to protect the environment or support human rights.
“Anti-development” activities included campaigns against climate change,
workers’ rights, or even the disposal of e-waste by India’s massive IT sector. The Ford
Foundation was also among those named. For a period of time, all the
foundation’s funds coming into India were scrutinised by the Indian home ministry.

Accusing development NGOs
of being anti-development is somewhat of a paradox – but it’s a growing global
trend. “Particularly for those activists who dare to challenge economic and
political elites, the environment in which civil society operates has continued
to deteriorate,” reported Civicus, the global civil society alliance, in their 2016
State of Civil Society review.

In India, prior to
the IB report, there were already constraints and increased scrutiny of NGOs.
The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) was introduced in 2010,
requiring all NGOs to apply for a license to receive foreign funding. The act
was initially targeted at international political funding, but NGOs were
included in its remit.

Before the leaked IB
report, some hailed the increased scrutiny as potentially positive: “This is
good for India; it will
force Indians to be more conscious of the role of NGOs and to take ownership
for our issues” said G Ananthapadmanabhan at the time, who had been the CEO of
both Amnesty International and Greenpeace in India.

It was a compelling
argument: for civil society to thrive it needs local support. And in India, that
support is lukewarm, at best. “The civil society sector, especially those that
receive foreign funding, doesn’t enjoy societal credibility,” says Biraj Patnaik,
a human rights activist. “Indian society is fundamentally xenophobic, and faces
a post-colonial hangover.” Patnaik explains that the role of the CIA in regime
changes around the world during the 1970s, as well as the perception then that
it was meddling in internal affairs in India, has left scars that still
hurt forty years after the end of the cold war.

But the attack on foreign
funding of civil society hasn’t resulted in the sudden rise of domestic
donations and supporters, and the optimism of those in the NGO world has faded.
Instead, the clampdown has seen many organisations simply fold. It’s estimated
that at least 10,000 FCRA licenses, needed to receive foreign funds, have been
revoked. Some of this is purely administrative – organisations failing to
submit the proper paperwork. But it was also tactical on the part of the
government: requiring short turnaround times, or digital returns for small
organisations presents a huge barrier to organisations lacking capacity.

The environment for
constructive engagement with the government has, as a consequence, been
severely constrained. Suman Sahai, founder of the Indian Gene Campaign says:
“If you want to do campaigning [in India], you need to engage with the
government. But the current climate is one of total disengagement. The
government has shut the door on the NGO sector.”

Patnaik agrees. “It’s not
that the current regime is against all NGOs. But their actions clearly show
that they are opposed to all NGOs working on human rights. There is little
space for dialogue or negotiation on rights issues with the present
government.” Human rights organisations have seen their operations constrained
and Sahai worries about the culture of fear that has manifested since the IB
report. “Most people are staying below the radar,” she says. “We can’t even get
people to sit on our boards. They’re resigning, fearing harassment from the
government.”

All NGOs receiving
foreign funds now have to re-register for their FCRA license. Organisations
with permanent FCRA licenses now have to get these renewed every five years.
Most are doing their utmost to comply: “We’re now trying to change tactics.
They want reporting? We’ll kill them with transparency,” says one activist.

In India and other
countries where civil society is threatened, NGOs need to find new ways to call
for change. Some don’t see campaigning approaches, such as Greenpeace’s
opposition to coal-fired power stations, or Action Aid’s activism against the
mining company Vedanta, as being part of the answer. At the time of the IB
report, Greenpeace India
faced the brunt of public accusations: shortly after the report was leaked, a
Greenpeace staff member was removed from a flight on
her way to a meeting in the UK.
Two years on, the organisation continues to fight government attempts to shut
them down: six court judgments against their ban have ruled the government’s
actions as unlawful.

“We need to think of ways
of speaking where we can’t be targeted and closed down,” says Jayati Ghosh,
from Jawaharlal Nehru University.
“We need to persuade people about the validity of what we’re saying, that
environment doesn’t have to be a trade-off for development.”

This is a tall order in a
country where poverty is so overwhelming. For the vast majority of Indians,
thinking long-term about whether climate change can be solved by organic
farming and clean energy seems irrelevant when you simply want a roof over your
head and some food on the table, or for your children to go to school.

But it’s unlikely that
the trend will reverse, in India
or elsewhere. Civil society everywhere is under threat, including in the UK, where
charities receiving government funding are now being prevented from using those funds to campaign against
government policies, a move which appears to
silence the government’s critics. It may not be on the scale of the Indian
clampdown, but it’s certainly on the spectrum.

Protecting the voices of
NGOs and activists seems to be one of the biggest challenges facing the
development community. Retreating from hard-edged campaigning and failing to
challenge government is clearly not the answer. But if challenging governments
in developing countries isn’t done while building support from the local
community, it risks failing altogether.

About Me

Dr. Suman Sahai, who has had a distinguished scientific career in the field of genetics, is a recipient of the Padma Shri,the Borlaug Award, Outstanding Woman Achiever awards, the BirbalSahni Gold Medal and the Order of the Golden Ark .
Dr. Sahai is founder Chairperson of the Gene Campaign which is a leading research and advocacy organization, working on issues relating to food, nutrition and livelihoods. She has published extensively on science and policy issues and is a member of several national policy forums on scientific research and education, biodiversity and environment, biotechnology and bioethics as well as intellectual property rights.
Dr Sahai chaired India’s Planning Commission Task Force on ‘Agro biodiversity and Genetically Engineered Organisms’, for the XIth Plan. She was a member of the Steering Committee of the National Biodiversity Board , the Expert Committee on Biotechnology Policy and the Bioethics Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research.She has served on the Research Advisory Committees of national scientific institutions.
Dr Sahai can be reached at www.genecampaign.org and mail@genecampaign.org